> This particular change looks like gratuitous breakage, no matter how > sound the reasons for it, and putting it in to 2.6 with 3.0 "just around > the corner" (though not for production purposes) is guaranteed to upset > some people and cause adverse reaction. > > This is not "prevarication", it's a serious discussion about how such > issues should be managed. The current glaring lack is of a sound > decision-making process. Such breakage-inducing change should be > reserved for major versions (as was the fix to the socket addressing wart). I just like to point out that I disagree with this classification. The change is not gratuitous breakage (it's neither gratuitous, nor is it breakage), nor is it breakage-inducing. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4